MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106213387

Doxycycline decreases tumor burden in a bone metastasis model of human breast cancer.

2002· article· en· W2106213387 on OpenAlexaff
Wilhelmina Duivenvoorden, Snežana Popović, Šárka Lhoták, Eric Seidlitz, Holger W. Hirte, Richard Tozer, Gurmit Singh

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDoxycyclineBone metastasisBreast cancerMetastasisBone resorptionCancerInternal medicineCancer researchOncologyPathologyBiologyAntibiotics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone is one of the most frequent sites for metastasis in breast cancer patients,often resulting in significant clinical morbidity and mortality. Increased matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) activity of tumor cells correlates with a higher invasive and metastatic potential. Members of the tetracycline family of antibiotics, including doxycycline, have potential treatment value for bone metastasis; they inhibit cancer cell proliferation, and they are also potent MMP inhibitors and are highly osteotropic. Doxycycline treatment in an experimental bone metastasis mouse model of human breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cells resulted in a 70% reduction in total tumor burden when compared with placebo control animals. In tumor-bearing animals, the amount of doxycycline incorporated into the radius/ulna as assessed by ELISA was lower than in non-tumor-bearing animals. In doxycycline-treated mice, bone formation was significantly enhanced as determined by increased numbers of osteoblasts, osteoid surface, and volume, whereas a decrease in bone resorption was also observed. Doxycycline treatment may be beneficial for breast cancer patients with or at risk for osteolytic bone metastasis; it greatly reduces tumor burden and could also compensate for the increased bone resorption associated with the disease.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations123
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207